"I do not, by nature, thrive on confrontation," declares Richard Dawkins, the Charles Simonyi Professor of the Public Understanding of Science at Oxford University and one of the world's leading skeptics concerning Christianity and belief in God.
Dawkins is well known as an intellectual adversary to all forms of religious belief – and of Christianity in particular. He is one of the world's most prolific scientists, writing books for a popular audience and addressing his strident worldview of evolutionary theory to an expanding audience. Put simply, Richard Dawkins aspires to be the "devil's chaplain" of Darwinian evolution.
All this is what makes Dawkins' denial of a confrontational approach so ludicrous. It is simply false at face value. This is a man who has taken every conceivable opportunity to make transparently clear his unquestioned belief that the dominant theory of evolution renders any form of belief in God irrational, backward, and dangerous.
Dawkins set out the basic framework of his worldview in best-selling books including, The Blind Watchmaker, Climbing Mount Improbable, Unweaving the Rainbow, and, most famously, The Selfish Gene. Now, in The God Delusion, Dawkins brings his attack on Christianity to a broader audience. Interestingly, Dawkins' new book is released close on the heels of two similar works. Fellow skeptics Sam Harris and Daniel Dennett have written similar books released since late summer. Taken together, these three books represent something of a frontal attack upon the legitimacy of belief in God.
There are few surprises in The God Delusion. Dawkins is a gifted writer who is able to popularize scientific concepts, and he writes with an acerbic style that fits his purpose in this volume. His condescending and sarcastic tone set the stage for what he hopes will be a devastating attack upon theism.
Dawkins admits his "presumptuous optimism" in hoping that his book will cause persons to set aside their faith. "If this book works as I intend, religious readers who open it will be atheists when they put it down," he asserts. Time will tell.
Though The God Delusion is intended more as an attack upon theism than as a defense of evolutionary theory, the framework of evolution is never far from Dawkins' mind. In his opening chapter, he argues that most legitimate scientists – indeed all who really understand the issues at stake – are atheists of one sort or another. He defines the alternatives as between a stark atheism (such as that Dawkins himself represents) and a form of nonsupernatural religion, as illustrated by the case of Albert Einstein. "Great scientists of our time who sound religious usually turn out not to be so when you examine their beliefs more deeply," he explains. As examples, Dawkins offers not only Albert Einstein and Stephen Hawking but also Martin Rees, currently Britain's Astronomer Royal and President of the Royal Society. According to Dawkins, Rees "goes to church as an 'unbelieving Anglican . . . out of loyalty to the tribe.'" As Dawkins explains, Rees "has no theistic beliefs, but shares the poetic naturalism that the cosmos provokes in the other scientists I have mentioned. He cites Einstein to the effect that he was a "deeply religious nonbeliever" – moved by the majesty of the cosmos but without any reference whatsoever to a supernatural being.
As Dawkins explains, real scientists are naturalists. As such, they eliminate entirely the question of a supernatural being's existence. "The metaphorical or pantheistic God of the physicists is light years away from the interventionist, miracle-wreaking, thought-reading, sin-punishing, prayer-answering God of the Bible, of priests, mullahs and rabbis, and of ordinary language. Deliberately to confuse the two is, in my opinion, an act of intellectual high treason."
As Dawkins then makes clear, his attack upon belief is explicitly and exclusively directed toward belief in supernatural gods. As he explains, "the most familiar" of these deities is Yahweh. Put simply, Dawkins holds no respect for those who believe in the God of the Bible, whom he describes as ruthless, cruel, selfish, and vindictive.
Comments
Torus makes an excellent point. If one single religion was true, we wouldn't need a book to find out about it; we would be able to learn about it just from living in the world and experiencing it, just as Newton discovered and elaborated on gravity, or Darwin discovering the process of evolution, Mendel discovering DNA, Einstein and relativity, etc. These facts of the world are true no matter what historical period or area of the globe you live in. These are the irrefutable truths of reality.
Annie - The only way you found out about your god is that some man (or woman) told you. Therefore you are believing the word of man. You didn't discover your religion all by yourself. If this were true (that people found their own gods on their own) then statistically speaking people in Asia would be just as likely to be christians as people in America and Europe. Likewise people in the America would be just as likely to be Jainist as those in India and just as likely to be Shinto as those in Japan. In other words your religion is a product of your environment. This is further evidence that it's cultural and invented.
Will - The reason Dawkins has such problems with religion is that the fact that people believe irrational things (like religion) extends to other aspects of their lives. It shrinks their minds (do not question!) and hinders the progress of the human race by wasting time on things like intelligent design. There are myriad other reasons; do a google search.
"Why should Mr. Dawkins care if I choose to believe God, that is my choose as well as it is his choice not to believe. He gets very hostile towards those who believe God and I just wonder what causes that hostility."
You can believe whatever you want. What the religious can NOT do is tell others--whether those of other faiths or no faith at all--what to think or do. Which we see happening all the time. Sometimes they resort to physical force. Thus, hostility.
I am so truly thankful that Almighty God has made known the WISDOM of the Ages to children, and to those not so intellectual. It really amazes me but then again, God forwarned us that these days would come. Days of scoffers and men who with their intellect would declare there is no God. "Only a fool says in his heart, there is no God." "God has written the knowledge of Himself on every human heart and men are without excuse."
I am also thankful that we have a choice to believe or not believe. I would not take the word of ANY man (I have in the past let men do my thinking for me) but praise be to GOD, that HE showed me that I can also think for myself. In fact, He says that "I should work out my own salvation with fear and trembling."
I am a personal witness testifying today that God, Almighty God, Eternal Creator, The King of Heaven and Earth, my Savior, my Lord, The Ancient of Days, is GOD! I am a living witness to HIS Glory and HIS truth, let every man be a liar, for GOD cannot lie!!! He is not a man that HE should change His mind, nor lie.
Our God is faithful, honorable and above all, HE IS HOLY!
I am so priviledged to be able to be HIS Witness, HE took me from the kingdom of darkness and brought me into the KINGDOM OF HIS SON! JESUS CHRIST!
Glory to you Father God; my prayer is that You will enlighten the eyes of the hearts to see You in all Your glory Father; and that Your Glory will cover the earth! Thank you for Your Holy Spirit that guides us into all truth! Thank you that You are not far from each one who earnestly seeks You!
Pray that Almighty God will give you Godly wisdom, man's wisdom is but a shadow of the Almighty's. HE is omniscient! There is NO ONE LIKE GOD! and there never will be. HE alone is God!
For those who don't believe, Jesus said it, even if someone dies on the cross, you still won't believe. That is your choice. Why should Mr. Dawkins care if I choose to believe God, that is my choose as well as it is his choice not to believe. He gets very hostile towards those who believe God and I just wonder what causes that hostility.
I'm not hostile to him for being a non-believer or any other non-believer.
When the Lord stands in the Heavens all mankind kneel and bow before Him and confess that He is LORD! For Your Glory Lord God! Annie
Cosmology is exactly what I said, the study of the universe. This includes but is not limited to origins. As a "philosophy" if you look that up, the principle definition is as related to "rational investigation". The point here is that cosmology, as it's generally understood, does not include the study of the extra-universal.
I never claimed the singularity was not a problem. In a previous post I even pointed out the "I don't know" aspect of this. All I said was that the theoretical models explain such-and-such and within those models certain questions make sense and certain questions do not. Asking a question about "cause" when trying to discuss an object which may not have temporal properties does not make sense.
As regards the paper, you found my analogy, good job! In many models of the universe, time starts at the beginning of the universe. There was no time before the universe (the universe has time as a property) just as there is no white before the paper (the paper has white as a property).
And lastly, as you point out, the singularity is a real problem. Perhaps it was simply a very small intermediate phase of a universe which had no beginning. Certain models can be constructed to fit this. Do you have any problems with a universe which has gone on forever? How about a god which has gone on forever?
As for checking out reasons.org, I did, and it's funny. Basically it's a weak attempt to apply science to religion. In other words, it's a religious propaganda website posing under the name of science. It does not, however, contain much science. As for Hugh Ross, he's not much of a scientist. A PhD in Astronomy is all very nice (I have a PhD too, impressed?!) but it does not imply any knowledge about the universe's origins. Couple that with his obvious religious motives and the result is worrisome. He lacks evidence of his religious beliefs as does anyone and it's pretty clear that he's just pushing forth his religious views under the guise of science. Basically he's like the intelligent design people, trying to put together a scientific argument that there are holes which must be filled by a god. As such it has all the same flaws. You can look these up.
torus,
You are right in your assumption that I would say that God resides outside of the Universe.
'Cosmology is not the study of origins, it's the study of the universe.'
That is incorrect my friend. Astronomy is the study of the entities within the universe, cosmology on the other hand is the study of the origins and development of the universe.
The official definition is: the branch of philosophy dealing with the origin and general structure of the universe, with its parts, elements, and laws, and esp. with such of its characteristics as space, time, causality, and freedom. ~ From http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/cosmology
'Your questions unfortunately are meaningless in the framework of a space-time singularity. '
False. The biggest problem for scientists is the singularity itself. Without a way to explain away how it began, you are left with an uncaused event which is in itself impossible. For every action there is a reaction and for every event, there is a cause within out known space-time. Physics stay the same within our universe. Outside of it... impossible for us to know.
'Your baseball analogy is flawed because a clock is ticking in the background of the baseball being thrown. '
Everything we do, everything we attempt to explain has this ticking clock. It is impossible for us to comprehend eternity due to this 'clock'. The analogy is correct. We have a universe that is expanding. What is causing it to expand? What caused it to start expanding in the first place? If you blow up a balloon, it expands. Much like the universe. What is causing it to do so? This is the science of Cosmology.
'A better analogy would be to ask where the white starts on a blank piece of paper. It doesn't start anywhere, the paper itself is white.'
You are trapped in your own analogy. Who cares where the white starts? We see where the white starts, it starts at any one of the edges of the paper, even the 'white' had a beginning.
You see, if something has a beginning, it must have been started by something or someone. Now if you ask the question of who created God... we cannot answer that. God existed before space or time existed, so therefore, God had no beginning as we know it.
'his is as suggested by the data available, this is not some off-the-wall claim.'
This 'data' you refer to... I think you should check out http://www.reasons.org and learn from someone who knows more about cosmology, string theory and astrophysics then we would be able to learn in a single lifetime.
Hugh Ross is an incredible scientist, and a renowned one at that.
zenodaddy: One small observation on this of yours: "Before the big bang there was nothing. No matter, no energy, no space, no time, and no extra dimensions. There was nothing. All of a sudden there was something."
OK, so if there was nothing before the big bang, how can there have been a God before the big bang? Oh, there can't have been. How can he have said "let there be light" if he hadn't already said "let there be time"? The literal interpretations of both the big bang and the bible, are not consistent.
Zenodaddy - without time the phrase "come into existence" does not mean anything. Saying "before" the Big Bang is meaningless, as is the phrase "all of a sudden". You try to answer the question by invoking god, which only passes the buck. You would probably say that your god exists outside of time and space (what does "exists" mean outside of time and space?) and has been around forever (what do all these terms mean without time and space?). This conjecture of yours creates far more questions than it answers and has no evidence to back it up.
Cosmology is not the study of origins, it's the study of the universe. The origin of the universe is only one small part. Cosmology, like any science, only suggests theories which are measurable and fit the available data. It's made the theoretical (and measurable) suggestions which I've given you. Your questions unfortunately are meaningless in the framework of a space-time singularity.
Your baseball analogy is flawed because a clock is ticking in the background of the baseball being thrown. A better analogy would be to ask where the white starts on a blank piece of paper. It doesn't start anywhere, the paper itself is white.
Similarly there is nothing "before" the big bang because there is no "before". This is as suggested by the data available, this is not some off-the-wall claim.
torus,
Well written reply. I disagree however.
'The Big Bang is not something which occurred with a clock ticking in the background, time did not exist until the universe existed.'
Exactly right. Time did not exist until the universe existed. So therefore, how did the universe come into existence? Cosmology is all about origins, specifically how the universe came about. Before the big bang there was nothing. No matter, no energy, no space, no time, and no extra dimensions. There was nothing. All of a sudden there was something.
Genesis 1:1, In the beginning, God Created the Heavens and the Earth.
You see a baseball flying through the air and according to your assumption, nothing hit the ball, it just suddenly and without cause, came into being and flung itself across the sky. I on the other hand, believe someone hit the ball... :-)
To Torus:
Dear one, you are clearly an educated person. May I then ask you this? Can you to tell me of any person that has ever resided on this planet, that could create at least one blade of grass? A flower? An animal? A piece of dirt? Be careful with your answer. For in order to create, we must take nothing and make it something. Otherwise, we are just manipulating creation. This is truth.
Secondly, your search for the truth led you to religion and science. I can understand the science part, but not the religion, that's weird. Why would somebody want to be oppressed. God never called us to be religious. God is not about religion, he is about relationship. Meanings have been so misconstrued since it was written. Pork was not to be eaten in antiquity. They understood it explicitly. Later, religions missed the entire point. God said to not eat pork because it would have killed them. They knew nothing of sanitary measures or sterilization. Today, well, we know about such things and can prevent a pork-related death. The point is, God is not about religion, but relationship. He loves us and he wants us to love him, but we will not be forced. His is a perfect love.
Dear one, the knowledge of God (The Father, Son and Holy Spirit) is not the end of wisdom, it is the beginning. God wants to make himself real to you, but we have to come to Him on His terms, not the other way around. If you search you will find as I and many others have.
As an educated person, would you take the word of another educated person, perhaps a physician? Read the Gospel of Luke, for he was that physician. He too was an educated man, and did an exhaustive investigation, complete with eyewitnesses. He was not a religious man at all, he was actually a gentile. But after his investigation, he ended up writing 42% of the New Testament.
Look for Him, not a religion. God says to not rely on our own understanding, as His thoughts are higher than ours.
Perhaps it is a presupposition, thinking there is no metaphysical reality, but not, I think, an unreasonable one. One has to begin somewhere, and I think my view assumes the least. But I simply cannot, in this day and age, understand why people would believe in some other kind of reality. Perhaps there is; however, as far as science can tell, there is none. Introducing a metaphysical reality seems to confuse the issue of reality as we experience it immediately. Apparently there is no way to detect this other reality, so what's the point of it? It seems a leftover from our species' childhood when we understood so much less of things than we do now (altho' of course there is still plenty we have to find, but science will do this; not theology).
I have not made a statement like "there is no god." Atheism is about a *lack* of belief, not a statement *of* belief. Theists say there is a god and atheism is a reaction to that. I wish there was no word for atheism, just as there is no word for someone who doesn't believe in astrology or ghosts.
I agree with Dawkins when he said in his book, "There is (almost certainly) no god." Perhaps there is a deity of some kind. I will not state positively that there is not but one can *reasonably conclude* that certain things don't exist without having omniscience. I definitely think, however, that each and every religion is absolutely wrong about reality and about human nature and the earth and life and the universe, and that if there is a deity, it is absolutely nothing like what any religion has ever claimed it was.
bcoontz - the way I see it I have only chosen to believe evidence and the scientific process.
Partly this was how I was raised (no religion) and partly in my own choices (PhD in Mathematics). At the end of the day though after seeing that all faiths I was ever exposed to seemed to take a very large unproven thing for granted, I came to the conclusion that it didn't make sense to pursue any of them. As a result I have no belief in that department. This does not mean my mind is not open, just that there is no evidence of gods (anyones) before it.
For a specific example, I read up on Tibetan Buddhism for a while. This isn't even a theistic faith but after all the interesting thoughts (Dharma practice, shunning of attachments) the author (some noble monk) all of a sudden jumped headstrong into reincarnation. Zero evidence. The book lost my interest right there.
But more than that, whenever religion (any) and science have come into conflict, science (and its attendant reason) have been the clear winner. Creation of life, evolution makes far more sense to me and leaves far fewer unknowns than postulating supreme beings. Structure of the universe, mathematics and physics model things far better than religion, which unfortunately can't even address the issue. Morals are better reasoned out since then I understand why I shouldn't kill or steal rather than simply obeying.
So at the end of the day religions have never served a purpose for me. I will respectfully keep my mind open of course for evidence to the contrary. Take care.
Torus: Thanks for being more civil in this post. When talking about atheism or theism, the table has already been set. The binary nature of it wasn't imposed or the "deck stacked." That is just the terrain that we find ourselves on. I appreciate and respect the idea of "I don't know." It is far more appropriate for the topic at hand and was really the point that I was making in the original post. In other words, you choose atheism, though you are sure that you don't know. With all of the possible choices that you outlined and considering the possible consequences of being wrong, I would think that it would behoove you to pair down those possibilities using your reason.
Most people have the wrong idea of skepticism. They think that it just means to not believe something and then to look for reasons not to believe it. Positive skepticism does its' best not to presuppose, but to try to look at evidence, pro and con, without prejudice. Though it is under constant withering criticism from the unbelieving world, the Bible has withstood challenges to its historicity. People in the first century who were eyewitnesses to Christs resurrection went to their deaths (in many cases horrible deaths) holding on to what they had seen without recanting. Many do so today (see the article on the Cambodian martyrs). But even among those who saw him, "some doubted." Matthew 28:17. Even seeing God will not help you to overcome an unbelieving heart. I believe God made it that way to shame the angels who rebelled, that, though they saw Him and knew Him, they still would not submit to Him. "God chose the weak things of the world (faith) to shame the strong (direct observation)." 1Corintians 1:27. I would just encourage you to not give up on Christainity, but to investigate it thoroughly and without prejudice.
Will E.: The idea that there is no reality apart from the physical is the philosophy of materialism. It makes a metaphysical statement (that there is no metaphysical reality), but it is necessarily a presupposition. The idea of metaphysical reality is not of itself, self refuting. It merely claims that there is a reality apart from that which is physical. And apparently you missed the point also of the illustration. For you to say with certainty that there is no God, you would have to be claiming omniscience. If you're not willing to make that statement, then you must admit that you don't know. And as I said to Torus, considering the consequences, you should perhaps make a more earnest effort. It won't be spurious and I can't think of a malicious doctrine of Christ.
bcoontz - the problem might be your question is not so simple. First, there are different sorts of atheists and agnostics. The best simplification might be those who simply say that there is no evidence for any god or gods. I am in this camp so I will attempt to answer your question.
I say "attempt" because in truth the question is not binary. Many theists (Christians are especially fond of this) like to put atheists on the spot with the "God or no god" question whereas in truth there could be one god, your god, mabye not your god, many gods, other extra-universal meta-beings, and so on. Attempting to answer the question in the manner it is phrased is stacking the deck, so to speak. It would be like me asking you if my hair is blonde or red and trying to make you choose, when in truth it's neither.
So to hit the point, I could be wrong, sure, but this does not mean that it's your god I'm wrong about. It's entirely possible that we're both wrong and that there's a pantheon of gods.
Since there is no evidence I see no reason to do anything in that department.
A similar point (I'm not the first to make this but perhaps you've not heard it) is that there is a possibility that there is a unicorn behind you which you cannot see. If you turn around he flits away quickly. Everyone else can see him but they'll lie to you about it.
Do you believe this? Very probably not. Could you be wrong? Sure, you have no evidence that it's false but gosh, it seems really really unlikely, given the present data (none). The way you feel about this scenario is pretty much the same way I feel about god(s).
"Atheism" just means lack of god-belief. There are lots of atheists who believe in "metaphysical" stuff like ghosts, astrology, alternative healing, ESP, other dimensions, etc., so the idea that atheism is "making a statement about metaphysical reality" is missing the point; all atheism is is lack of god-belief. What each atheist does after that, philosophically, is up to the individual atheist. Most atheists think it just makes sense--lacking the time to investigate every atom in China, absurd of a notion as that is--to reject all proposed religions and evidences of god(s) as spurious at best and downright malicious at worst.
But even the concept of "metaphysical reality" is self-refuting, as is the concept of the supernatural. If it exists, it is physical, it is natural, it is reality.